Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Libre]

Excuse me but I thought that is what the bible was. Recorded History. If not then what?

No, no, no, Bladerunner. The Bible is no more recorded history than the 1964 movie Santa Claus Conquers the Martians - but back in ancient times, they didn't have to put words to the effect:
this is a work of fiction, and any resemblence to any persons living or dead is purly coincidental
like they do now.
Seriously, Blade.
Only the most fundamentally religious of us take the Bible as a history book.
Are you telling me you take it all literally?

Yes, there is not one single verifiable instance of a miracle in modern times. Wonder Why?

because there haven't been any?

As far as the appearance of a deity is concerned, I guess the burning bush and other appearances just won't do.

No they won't. I can't accept a source's (the Bible's) own information as proof of it's own veracity. That would be akin to taking a man at his word because he says he never lies.

Well he sent his son, also the son of man to us. Was that not good enough appearance for a Deity. OH yeah, he was the one who performed a lot of those miracles and died for our sins.

see comment above

Yes, there are other written publications that acknowledge the life of Jesus. He was a real person!

There is not that much of a dispute among athiests about whether or not Jeses was a real person. I can accept the Jesus was real. I just have problems with the accounts of his sexless conception, his reincarnation, and the other paranormal accounts of his activities in the Bible (but no place in ACTUAL history books, newspapers, periodicals, scientific journals and papers, or university libraries outside of the Theology section).
Real people don't cause these kinds of debates. It is the UNreal people we have a problem with accepting. You know, like Gods.

God does not ask much from you. Simply put, 'believe in him'. What do you get out of this bagain? He Loves you! is that not enough?

No, it's far from enough. It does not begin to be enough.
Let me ammend your statement so it more reflects my own take on the matter:
'believe in him (despite the total absense of reason to do so, despite the far more plausible alternative hypotheses that don't reach for answers far beyond their explanatory power, despite the fact that, if true, this God who loves us causes massive grief and suffering to innocents, wipes out poor and depressed regions with earthquakes and tsunamis - and often the most reverent regions, I might add, seems to take a callous and even sadistic pleasure in the suffering of the world, who makes the big-bad assholes even bigger and badder, and all this is just a start).
No, it's far from enough.

 

[Galaxiom]

There is not that much of a dispute among athiests about whether or not Jeses was a real person.

I for one disagree with that.

No doubt there were men called Jesus but the overwhelming evidence is that the entire story is fiction.

There is an absolute absence of any contemporary corroborating reference despite the fantastic things he is supposed to have done.

The events described are not plausible suggesting they are concoctions of a wild imagination. I see no reason to think that Jesus himself is anything but a product of that same imagination.

The first mention of Jesus in history is a lifetime after the supposed events, conveniently putting it beyond any living memory at the time.

The NT is written in Greek rather than a language local to the supposed events.

Also worth mentioning is the complete absence of any archaeological evidence of the locations described in the Old Testament. It too is a work of fiction.

 

[Bladerunner]

I for one disagree with that.

The first mention of Jesus in history is a lifetime after the supposed events, conveniently putting it beyond any living memory at the time.

not true, there is a record of Jesus during Roman time as told in the NT.

The NT is written in Greek rather than a language local to the supposed events.

"The New Testament in the Original Greek is a Greek-language version of the New Testament published in 1881."

Also worth mentioning is the complete absence of any archaeological evidence of the locations described in the Old Testament. It too is a work of fiction.

You have got to be kidding me. Don't know what you have been reading but you had better get a better reference. um, um um

 

[Galaxiom]

... there is a record of Jesus during Roman time as told in the NT

Wrong. There is no mention of Jesus in any old writings until about 80 AD. Even this is indirect because it only refers to Jesus as a belief of the Christians.

That is not a contemporary reference.

I cannot provide a reference to the absence of something so it is up to you to provde evidence. You can't because it doesn't exist.

BTW. It would be nice if you learnt how use the forum quotes in replies. You invariably get it wrong making it harder for others to recognise what you say and what you quote, and to quote you.

 

[Bladerunner]

No, no, no, Bladerunner. The Bible is no more recorded history than the 1964 movie Santa Claus Conquers the Martians - but back in ancient times, they didn't have to put words to the effect:
this is a work of fiction, and any resemblence to any persons living or dead is purly coincidental

AT the very least you believe in something. We will just have to disagree here.

Seriously, Blade.
Only the most fundamentally religious of us take the Bible as a history book.
Are you telling me you take it all literally?

Yes, everything from the days of Moses, (who by the way is mentioned in the Egyptian writings of the day) was written down and is a history of what happened then. The days from creation of all things to Moses was written by God and given to Moses.

because there haven't been any?

Here you agreeing with me about no new miracles since the old days. My "Wonder Why" was based upon the fact that Jesus is not here to perform them. I might ad, that Peter did perform several miracles on his own.

There is not that much of a dispute among athiests about whether or not Jeses was a real person. I can accept the Jesus was real. I just have problems with the accounts of his sexless conception, his reincarnation, and the other paranormal accounts of his activities in the Bible (but no place in ACTUAL history books, newspapers, periodicals, scientific journals and papers, or university libraries outside of the Theology section).

http://canadafreepress.com/index.ph...al-proof-of-an-actual-jesus-christ-of-nazaret

Real people don't cause these kinds of debates. It is the UNreal people we have a problem with accepting. You know, like Gods.

I am having trouble comprehending this statement. Is it just me?

No, it's far from enough. It does not begin to be enough.
Let me ammend your statement so it more reflects my own take on the matter:
'believe in him (despite the total absense of reason to do so, despite the far more plausible alternative hypotheses that don't reach for answers far beyond their explanatory power, despite the fact that, if true, this God who loves us causes massive grief and suffering to innocents, wipes out poor and depressed regions with earthquakes and tsunamis - and often the most reverent regions, I might add, seems to take a callous and even sadistic pleasure in the suffering of the world, who makes the big-bad assholes even bigger and badder, and all this is just a start).
No, it's far from enough.

Not going to try and touch this, too messy. He still loves you!

 

[Brianwarnock]

BTW. It would be nice if you learnt how use the forum quotes in replies. You invariably get it wrong making it harder for others to recognise what you say and what you quote, and to quote you.

I've already mentioned this but it has had no effect, I think that it may be a ploy to dissuade people from arguing with him.

He is not the only poster who ignores requests to post normally, 50 to 1 places the quote after the reply.

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

Okay so i chose - Im an atheist but if god appeared before me i would change my mind - Although i solely believe in evolution and the science behind us being here , im sorry but the whole point of being an atheist is believing in no god but if (as you say) GOD an all mighty powerful being appeared before me it would give me personal evidence behind the fact he exists as i have seen him.

Although terribly terribly unlikely he shall appear before me anytime - if he did and proved so he was an actual god then i would be forced to change my mind as then it has been proven (not to everyone but to me) that a god exists.

 

[ConnorGiles]

Disregarding part of my earlier statement being an atheist isnt all about not believing in a god but believing in evolution and science is a big part of being an atheist and as said in my above post.

If an almighty Deity appeared infront of me and showed me his ways of creation it would certainly sway my opinions as being an atheist.

I always try to see the both sides of an debate (as to being GOD/Natural Selection here) but at this moment in time there is just more evidence for me to believe in natural selection rather than a god.

 

[ConnorGiles]

But on a slightly less serious note

I believe in results!

and Odin promised to kill all frost giants

and i havent seen any frost giants recently

 

[Libre]

I for one disagree with that.

No doubt there were men called Jesus but the overwhelming evidence is that the entire story is fiction.

There is an absolute absence of any contemporary corroborating reference despite the fantastic things he is supposed to have done.

The events described are not plausible suggesting they are concoctions of a wild imagination. I see no reason to think that Jesus himself is anything but a product of that same imagination.

The first mention of Jesus in history is a lifetime after the supposed events, conveniently putting it beyond any living memory at the time.

The NT is written in Greek rather than a language local to the supposed events.

Also worth mentioning is the complete absence of any archaeological evidence of the locations described in the Old Testament. It too is a work of fiction.

Yes, well, as I said, I don't dispute the existence of a man named Jesus. It's the fantastic things he is supposed to have done that I have trouble with.
There HAS INDEED been findings in recent years, that may not be incontrovertable proof of his existence - and certainly don't prove that Jesus is the Son of God, but thre is evidence that he was a man and maybe was married. They found (as I recall) a piece of his coffin? They found writings that refer to his marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/u...refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

How do I know if this is real or not?
I'm only saying it's not THAT much to accept that a human man named Jesus existed in the time he was supposed to exist and might have even preached the Gospel and been a rabbi (yes, a rabbi) as has long been supposed. It seems to me fruitless to deny it, and instead to assert that the entire story is completely conjured up, and does not cause any compromise of principals to at least accept the possibility of a human man, teacher, rabbi, and spiritual leader called Jesus.

 

[ConnorGiles]

I am really interested reading everyones opinion on this thread

Currently on page 8

Although i'm an atheist i do take opinions or theories onboard

Glad to see your such an Intelligent bunch

 

[Galaxiom]

They found (as I recall) a piece of his coffin?

I expect you are referring to what was supposed to be a piece of his brother's coffin. That proved to be a hoax. When the same archaeologist came up with two "pieces of evidence" for the existence of Jesus it was considered an extraordinary coincidence so others looked a bit harder at both.

They found writings that refer to his marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/u...refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

No provenance = No credibility. Most likely another hoax. There have been many hoaxes over a very long time, the most famous being the Shroud of Turin.

Moreover it is claimed that it was written in the fourth century. Hence it is not contemporary reference but just another reporting about the beliefs of Christians.

I doubt that it is a coincidence that the first woman to hold the academic position turns up with "evidence" to show that Jesus included female disciples.

As is evident in BladeRunner's posts, believers set a very low bar to what they consider as "proof".

 

[Bladerunner]

Okay so i chose - Im an atheist but if god appeared before me i would change my mind - Although i solely believe in evolution and the science behind us being here , im sorry but the whole point of being an atheist is believing in no god but if (as you say) GOD an all mighty powerful being appeared before me it would give me personal evidence behind the fact he exists as i have seen him.

What about Jesus, He was real and the Son of God. The road to Heaven goes through him alone. As far as your statements go, I see you are an opportunist as well as an Atheist.

Although terribly terribly unlikely he shall appear before me anytime - if he did and proved so he was an actual god then i would be forced to change my mind as then it has been proven (not to everyone but to me) that a god exists.

Yes he (Jesus) will appear near the end of revelations. However, by then you will have had to make a decision to acquire the mark or not to. Choose wisely my friend!

 

[Bladerunner]

Disregarding part of my earlier statement being an atheist isnt all about not believing in a god but believing in evolution and science is a big part of being an atheist and as said in my above post.

If an almighty Deity appeared infront of me and showed me his ways of creation it would certainly sway my opinions as being an atheist.

I always try to see the both sides of an debate (as to being GOD/Natural Selection here) but at this moment in time there is just more evidence for me to believe in natural selection rather than a god.

Let me help you out here. Evolution is NOT real regardless of what our scientist say. Rem, Golbal warming. well now it is hiding in the ocean,. OH, MY

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible-0/

 

[Bladerunner]

Yes, well, as I said, I don't dispute the existence of a man named Jesus. It's the fantastic things he is supposed to have done that I have trouble with.
There HAS INDEED been findings in recent years, that may not be incontrovertable proof of his existence - and certainly don't prove that Jesus is the Son of God, but thre is evidence that he was a man and maybe was married. They found (as I recall) a piece of his coffin? They found writings that refer to his marriage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/u...refers-to-jesus-wife.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

OH, Yeah.. First Jesus did not have a coffin. He arose from his TOMB! Second It is entirely possible that he was married.Moses was Married yet look at what he did. OH, yeah, this was written nearly 400 hundred years after Jesus was born (4th century),,, Reminds me of the Koran, (600 years AD).. Not very credible.

and then this, for the very article you posted. "Dr. King She repeatedly cautioned that this fragment should not be taken as proof that Jesus, the historical person, was actually married. The text was probably written centuries after Jesus lived, and all other early, historically reliable Christian literature is silent on the question, she said. "

How do I know if this is real or not?
I'm only saying it's not THAT much to accept that a human man named Jesus existed in the time he was supposed to exist and might have even preached the Gospel and been a rabbi (yes, a rabbi) as has long been supposed. It seems to me fruitless to deny it, and instead to assert that the entire story is completely conjured up, and does not cause any compromise of principals to at least accept the possibility of a human man, teacher, rabbi, and spiritual leader called Jesus.

Your getting closer. If you can see him as all these, then why can you not see him a the son of God? Is there as much a possibility as any of the others. No of course if he was the son of God, he was all of the above.

 

[Bladerunner]

I expect you are referring to what was supposed to be a piece of his brother's coffin. That proved to be a hoax. When the same archaeologist came up with two "pieces of evidence" for the existence of Jesus it was considered an extraordinary coincidence so others looked a bit harder at both.



No provenance = No credibility. Most likely another hoax. There have been many hoaxes over a very long time, the most famous being the Shroud of Turin.

Moreover it is claimed that it was written in the fourth century. Hence it is not contemporary reference but just another reporting about the beliefs of Christians.

I doubt that it is a coincidence that the first woman to hold the academic position turns up with "evidence" to show that Jesus included female disciples.

As is evident in BladeRunner's posts, believers set a very low bar to what they consider as "proof".

Careful now! I am just as much a scientist are you are? How much crow are you willing to consume when of course science proves there is a God!

Personally, don't think you can eat that much? lol

 

[ConnorGiles]

Yes he (Jesus) will appear near the end of revelations. However, by then you will have had to make a decision to acquire the mark or not to. Choose wisely my friend!

So basically "Jesus" shall appear to me at the end of revelations?

when is this so called end of revelations?

Because as far as i'm concerned at this moment in time there are many people on this earth called jesus as it is a name, that said i do not debate there was a man named jesus - as there are many named jesus.

End game , as said in previous posts if he revealed himself to me and proved himself as almighty then it would be a different matter as he has then proven the disbelief of atheism to me.

But until that time comes that he does appear himself to me - im sorry but i will not believe in something that has a chance of being made up?

because really all religion is going on is peoples words spoke about god and jesus.

Which as i think many people have said in these posts can be subject to "Chinese Whispers" over countless generations.

which could exaggerate what actually happened greatly.

Id like to think of myself as a Atheist until proved otherwise

 

[ConnorGiles]

Let me help you out here. Evolution is NOT real regardless of what our scientist say. Rem, Golbal warming. well now it is hiding in the ocean,. OH, MY

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible-0/

Take note this is my opinion not factual evidence

Well i have just read that article and it does raise some quite strong and interesting points .

But to say "Evolution is NOT real regardless of what our scientist say" is a very strong statement - I do not disagree with you on the fact in this article that organisms and things such as tree's are very complex but it does not put in big letters to me Must Be God to me all that says is that things in life are getting more and more complex in which we are striving to understand why it does this.

In regards to the Bee and the Flower statement, who said it was just bee's pollinating flowers before they were evolved. there may have been many other bugs before hand which sustained plants the way that bee's do in the current day.

you did throw a very interesting article about disproving evolution to me but in a matter of fact all it did was not disprove evolution but bring forth the many holes in the theory of evolution, to say evolution is NOT real is a bit far fetched because it has not officially been dis-proved to date.

There are many Gargantuan holes in the theory of evolution but thats because evolutionists are 24/7 hard at work trying to understand how it happened and why it happened which will take a considerable amount more time than religion filling all of the gargantuan holes it would also have with the phrase "God made it" which then automatically fills that hole with a large dosage of faith - (which i am not swayed to believe that evolutionists don't require as much if not more faith).

I'm interested in hearing your opinions Bladerunner as i am very intrigued by these sorts of subjects and like to hear both sides of a debate before swaying my opinion.

 

[Brianwarnock]

If everything was created according to a plan then what sort of sick mind creates parasites like the Tarantular Wasp.

Great film Alien.

Brian

 

[ConnorGiles]

If everything was created according to a plan then what sort of sick mind creates parasites like the Tarantular Wasp.

Great film Alien.

Brian

I think this picture best explains your situation Brian!

(Thats if obviously he exists)